31 



when these can be expected may as yet be distant, but the path is 

 being cleared at all events, by the Government o Ind a tl rot 

 the series of local Indian Floras which, in pursuance of Sir Joseu 

 X er ^Ff° n V re inC0UrSe of Preparation. M . d3 



JdtZ »vtl U ?r t ng ^, iC S ain " has reached Campannlaceae. 

 and the Flora of Bombay," by Dr. T. Cooke, is well nigh completed 



rnnnJ g fl V J I* l nt f oduction masons are given for including 

 many sp e C1 es which from a purely forest point of view mWu 

 perhaps have been omitted, but in point of fact no apology for 



font 1? *,??•' b6C ? USe l \ iB largel 5' t0 forest officers that we must 

 look tor additions to our knowledge of the living flora in the le«s 



anTnn rt 0t J™ B . mpil 5' more es P eciaI1 J ™ S. India, Burma, 

 on l°? **!• North ;Western Frontier. Theirs are the most frequent 



thef utur ^^ an USe already made of these P^mises well for 



No Indian botanist could fail to remember what is due to such 

 workers as Richard Thompson, Beddome, Gamble, Lace, Talbot, 

 t\^ S ^ i ^ ny younger workers, to say nothing of the dis- 

 iSE?? ed U7 autb ; or of this work himself as a systematist and an 

 indetatigable collector. Of work done for Indian botany, in and 

 out ot India, by other branches of the public service it is needless 

 nere to speak ; we may be assured that worthy successors to 



Thnnf^^V ght and R o xb «rgb, Jones and Colebrooke, Munro, 

 ttTAi Th ° mson > «trachey, C. B. Clarke, Collett, and others who 

 ai e stui with us will never be wanting ; but if " Indian Trees," 

 at, u ought to, inspires and keeps alive a love of science in 

 fnifi! ! i lg i generation s of the Indian Forest Service it will have 

 imniled a most important public duty. If a criticism may be 



*ZZ / S 1 !' e g ards the systematic aspect of the work, the author 

 aeems to have felt more diffidence in approaching points of 

 nomenclature than his reputation and experience as a botanist 

 altogether warranted. 



It is true, as is stated at page xi. of the Introduction, that " the 

 cnange of a name always causes inconvenience, loss of time, and 

 oiten creates confusion," if the change at least is made needlessly 

 oi in contravention of accepted principles; but in manv cases, it 

 snouicl be added, practical confusion and economic loss have 



wron 



cularly if, as too often happens, the name wrongly given or 

 quoted conveys or suggests misleading inferences. 



h fh SU °k a Cas ° as *^ e su P ercess i° n °f Mitrogyna for StrpJwgyne, 

 ootti of Korthals, some amount of inconvenience must arise 

 temporarily, but for this the author of the names must be held 

 answerable, and not principles, which cannot be infringed without 

 !h i* *° resxi lte that are nowhere more to be deprecated than in 

 the domain of applied science in the interests of forestry directly. 

 -I o take another case quoted in the same passage, it is most 

 undesirable to depart from the usage by which a well-known 

 form of Northern India is described as " Zizyphus Nummularia," 

 tTy fl can be avoided, and unless examples of Lamarck's 

 ^. rotundif olia " be accessible in Paris, we may feel some 

 hesitation in identifying Wight and Arnott's plant with Lamarck's. 

 But there is a prior question which, if rules of nomenclature are 

 to have any force at all, must be first answered, namely, why the 



